-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Eternal Damnation
- Thread starter tomana
- Start date
Brother, re-read your post very carefully. You've answered you own question in the fact that you are discussing apples and oranges.
The LDS has been thinking about this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement
Execution by firing squad of John D. Lee for his role in the Mountain Meadows massacre. Lee's blood was shed on the ground where the massacre had taken place 20 years earlier; nevertheless, Brigham Young said that Lee "has not half atoned for his great crime" (Young 1877, p. 242).
In Mormonism, blood atonement was a controversial doctrine that taught that murder is so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Thus, to atone for these sins the perpetrators must have their blood shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering. The concept was originally taught by Brigham Young, though it appears to be an expansion on the previous teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. This doctrine is no longer accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).
The doctrine originated during the Mormon Reformation, when Brigham Young governed the Utah Territory as a near-theocracy. Young and the other members of his First Presidency taught that the doctrine was ideally to be a voluntary choice by the sinner, carried out with love and compassion. Young considered it charitable to sacrifice a life than to see them endure eternal torment in the afterlife. In a full Mormon theocracy, blood atonement practice would be implemented by the state as a penal measure.
The blood atonement doctrine was the impetus behind laws in the territory and state of Utah allowing capital punishment by firing squad or decapitation. Though people in Utah were executed by firing squad for capital crimes under the assumption that this would aid their salvation, there is no clear evidence that Young or other top theocratic Mormon leaders enforced blood atonement for apostasy or non-capital crimes like miscegenation.[1] There is, however, some evidence that the doctrine was enforced a few times at the local church level without regard to secular judicial procedure.[2] The rhetoric of blood atonement may have contributed to a culture of violence leading to the Mountain Meadows massacre.[3]
Blood atonement remains an important doctrine within Mormon fundamentalism.[4] Within mainstream Mormonism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has informally opined, since 1978, that the doctrine is no longer in force. LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie, claiming to reflect the view of church leadership, wrote in 1978 that while he still believed that certain sins are beyond the atoning power of the blood of Christ, the doctrine of blood atonement is only applicable in a theocracy.[5] Nevertheless, given its long history, the doctrine still plays a role in some Utah death penalty trials.[6]
Within Mormon fundamentalism, the concept of blood atonenment is still recognized. In contrast, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has stated that "the so-called "blood atonement", by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of [the LDS Church]".[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement
Execution by firing squad of John D. Lee for his role in the Mountain Meadows massacre. Lee's blood was shed on the ground where the massacre had taken place 20 years earlier; nevertheless, Brigham Young said that Lee "has not half atoned for his great crime" (Young 1877, p. 242).
In Mormonism, blood atonement was a controversial doctrine that taught that murder is so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Thus, to atone for these sins the perpetrators must have their blood shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering. The concept was originally taught by Brigham Young, though it appears to be an expansion on the previous teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. This doctrine is no longer accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).
The doctrine originated during the Mormon Reformation, when Brigham Young governed the Utah Territory as a near-theocracy. Young and the other members of his First Presidency taught that the doctrine was ideally to be a voluntary choice by the sinner, carried out with love and compassion. Young considered it charitable to sacrifice a life than to see them endure eternal torment in the afterlife. In a full Mormon theocracy, blood atonement practice would be implemented by the state as a penal measure.
The blood atonement doctrine was the impetus behind laws in the territory and state of Utah allowing capital punishment by firing squad or decapitation. Though people in Utah were executed by firing squad for capital crimes under the assumption that this would aid their salvation, there is no clear evidence that Young or other top theocratic Mormon leaders enforced blood atonement for apostasy or non-capital crimes like miscegenation.[1] There is, however, some evidence that the doctrine was enforced a few times at the local church level without regard to secular judicial procedure.[2] The rhetoric of blood atonement may have contributed to a culture of violence leading to the Mountain Meadows massacre.[3]
Blood atonement remains an important doctrine within Mormon fundamentalism.[4] Within mainstream Mormonism, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has informally opined, since 1978, that the doctrine is no longer in force. LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie, claiming to reflect the view of church leadership, wrote in 1978 that while he still believed that certain sins are beyond the atoning power of the blood of Christ, the doctrine of blood atonement is only applicable in a theocracy.[5] Nevertheless, given its long history, the doctrine still plays a role in some Utah death penalty trials.[6]
Within Mormon fundamentalism, the concept of blood atonenment is still recognized. In contrast, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has stated that "the so-called "blood atonement", by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of [the LDS Church]".[7]
I understand what you are asking, this question puzzled me for many years.
I could be wrong on this, but Jesus was infinitely good. He had no sin, neither will he ever have sin. In this way he was the perfect infinite sacrifice for sin, paying that infinite price, which is eternal death.
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
It was a great question.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is why simply being 100% human is insufficient to be the Savior from sin. As God He encompasses eternity and thus exceeds anything begun in time and measured by time. Eternal punishment begins in time and then is measured forward by time. There is an element of mystery here but the fact that in his Deity he exceeds time is necessary to satisfy eternal punishment.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That sounds a lot like the heretics from Word of Faith!
It is not Christ that rejected anything. Through his death, burial and resurrection, he conquered sin, death, and Satan. Had He not rose from the dead He may still be in everlasting torment (only a conjectural possibility). But it is the resurrection that defeats all those arguments. Through the resurrection he becomes the Conqueror, and lives today. Having defeated death he is the only one through whom one can go to for salvation.
Hey, this is the un-biased, non-discriminatory, non-denominational thread ... please keep your inflammatory comments in the Baptist only threads ... hehe
Word of faith? No, I do not ascribe to their doctrine, Health & Wealth is false simply because Paul said he glories in his infirmities and we know a few of them that he had ... very poor to no eyesight, thorn in the flesh, feeble of body, contemptible speech, etc. But as i recall, Paul said he glories in his infirmities (plural) that the Spirit of God might rest upon him.
Word of faith? No, I do not ascribe to their doctrine, Health & Wealth is false simply because Paul said he glories in his infirmities and we know a few of them that he had ... very poor to no eyesight, thorn in the flesh, feeble of body, contemptible speech, etc. But as i recall, Paul said he glories in his infirmities (plural) that the Spirit of God might rest upon him.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I am sure you know that Word of Faith is not limited to Health and Wealth!
Alive in Christ
New Member
Of course not.
Christ took all of our sins upon Himself, yet He Himself never sinned.
convicted1
Guest
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
saturneptune
New Member
It is an interesting question to ponder, and it takes some thought to ask it. However, Christ is a different Being than sinful man. Since the wages of sin is death, and Christ knew no sin, the purpose of His death could not have been His sin, with all its eternal consequences, but to atone for our sins. There is nothing we can do to wipe away the sins we commit everyday of our life. Only Jesus Christ has that ability. This can be seen in the Ressurection. Without faith in Christ, none of us will rise to eternal life. As Scripture says, David's bones are still there.
saturneptune
New Member
That is the same symbol you used for the Binny Hinn Show.
convicted1
Guest
And you need to quit pointing your finger, and start going on a diet. Who drew your likeness......the one in your avatar? LOL
convicted1
Guest
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Doesn't this OP presupose though that the Sin of Unbelief is what condemns us, isn't the truth that we are born estarnged from god, being sinners by birth and who than chose to reject christ willfully?
Yes, the OP does imply that! Sin is what condemns humans to hell and that sin is expressed in unbelief at all levels. Those who never hear the gospel are in unbelief, resistance and rejection as their response to all external and internal witnesses concerning the existence of God and the moral law written upon their own conscience - Romans 1:18-21
By stating that unbelief itself is the culprite, and NOT our born in sin and spiritual dead already concept, we would have starnge case of having it better for sinners NOT to be witnessed to, for that would cause them to fall at that point!